Monday, December 31, 2007

This has been an eventful year. Research with Christopher Chippindale (and published in 2000) had presented indicators for the "history" and "archaeology" of antiquities. One of the contemporary collections that we had explored had belonged to Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman: it was subsequently sold (or donated) to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Part of the Fleischman collection was returned to Italy from the Getty in 2007 confirming our earlier hypothesis.

These objects have lost their archaeological contexts, and one of the main reasons for their return will be to deter museums and private collectors from acquiring recently-surfaced objects. Yet the sale of the Guennol lion at Sotheby's has perhaps encouraged some to see antiquities as a "hot" investment. Auctions continue to be an important outlet for antiquities. The decision by Bonham's to withdraw a Lydian silver kyathos from its October sale is a reminder that suspect pieces do still emerge on the market. Bonham's do not so far seem to have offered an explanation of how the piece was offered for sale. A restraining organisation for the market should be the Art Loss Register. Can recently surfaced antiquities be offered certificates with any sense of security?

2007 has seen the closure of the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre in Cambridge though I expect Colin Renfrew and Neil Brodie will continue to contribute to the discussion. Culture Without Context has been an important source of comment and record.

One of the solutions to prevent and restrict looting lies in increased legislation and import controls. In 2007 the US government signed a new memorandum with Cyprus. This move, designed to limit the level of looting on the island, has met with fierce opposition from bodies representing coin-dealers and coin-collectors who have taken legal action against the US State Department. The case has served to remind archaeologists that there are strongly-held views on the "right" to collect whatever the material and intellectual consequences.

Image courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum.Red figure psykter (ceramic), attributed to the Kleophrades Painter. Greek, Attic, ca. 510-500 B.C. One of four objects to be transferred in title to the Italian government but to remain on loan to the Princeton University Art Museum.

In 1995, True had persuaded the Getty to adopt ethical standards requiring objects proposed for acquisition to have been documented and written about by scholars.

The implication is clear. True acted with integrity. And this was a point stressed by Malcolm Bell III in his opinion piece, "The Getty's Italian Job", in The New York Times, November 28, 2005.

Mr. Ferri's outrage at the looting of Italy's heritage is justified. By laying bare the archives and warehouses of major dealers, he has revealed corruption at the core of the market. But in prosecuting Marion True, he has used decades-old evidence against a curator who brought needed reform to the Getty Museum, and I can only hope the Italian courts recognize the good she has done.

But what Bell did not know back in 2005 was the case that was developing for the return of antiquities acquired under True's curatorship.

The wholesale acquisition of the Fleischman collection was clearly a mistake. But as True says in the Eakin interview:

By the time I met Larry Fleischman, he had a big collection, and many things he bought from Symes ... And I bought from Symes.

I wonder if she remembers her quote from the 1996 interview with The Art Newspaper (J.E. Kaufman, "Getty Decides Publishing Equals Provenance"; and quoted by Colin Renfrew in Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership [2000], p. 70):

This [Fleischman] acquisition is in line with exactly what we said we would do ... We went out of our way to be clear that we were not saying we would not buy any more unprovenanced material.

But there were problems with the Fleischman antiquities. Some were recently surfaced as their histories showed all too clearly. Renfrew wisely observed:

The Getty's new position as announced in 1995 is thus not quite the radical change of policy which it seemed at first to many observers.

Indeed one of the observers who has supported the Getty position is John H. Merryman who cited the museum's revised policy as an example of the way for a museum to adopt "elaborate due-diligence procedures" (see "Due-diligence procedures are not enough to satisfy them"). How misguided he was. The revised policy was fatally flawed and has led to the return of antiquities to both Greece and Italy.

Eakin could have explored issues such as these as part of a more penetrating interview. But he chose not to do so.

According to court documents, the Getty bought the griffins from the New York diamond magnate Maurice Tempelsman in 1985 in a deal totaling $6,486,004. The sale was handled through the London dealer Robin Symes, the documents indicate.

Hecht reported the find-spot for the two polychome pieces was from Orta Nova. Giacomo Medici is quoted as saying that the Apollo came from a nearby villa.

The Tempelsman pieces are (using the numbers from the exhibition handlist):

ReferencesExhibition catalogue. 1994. A passion for antiquities: ancient art from the collection of Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman. Malibu, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum in association with the Cleveland Museum of Art.Gill, D. W. J., and C. Chippindale. 2007. "From Malibu to Rome: further developments on the return of antiquities." International Journal of Cultural Property 14: 205-40.

Check the authenticity of the piece. Who is selling it and who has seen it in terms of scholars or experts?

Perhaps the buyer needs to do a little bit more than that. Is the piece known before 1970? Is the documentation secure? Who were the previous collectors? Are they named or anonymous?

And certainly check who is selling it. This is important given the associations between certain North American dealers and the antiquities returned to Italy over the last few years. But Baugh does not even consider this as an issue.

No doubt the advice will be to check the Art Loss Register. But that does not have a good track record for newly surfaced antiquities.

You can be certain that I will not be buying antiquities for Christmas.

Looting Matters wishes all its readers a Happy Christmas. Nadolig llawen i chi!

The BBC has reported that the sale of a cuneiform tablet "thought to have been smuggled from Iraq" has been stopped ("eBay Iraq relic auction stopped", December 18, 2007). Apparently "Police confiscated the tablet at a storage facility in Zurich".

The seller has not been named, but does "a storage facility" hint at more than a private address?

To what extent does eBay continue to serve as a conduit of newly surfaced antiquities?

It is striking that 15 pieces were represented by South Italian pottery: Apulian (11), Lucanian (2) and Paestan (2). Seven bronzes and pots are Etruscan in style. Twenty-eight of the objects are Attic pots, both black-figured (5) and red-figured (23). Such pots are regularly found in Etruscan tombs as well as the cemeteries of the western Greek colonies.

ImageAttic red-figured column-krater showing Dionysos (no. 20). Attributed to the Geras painter. From the Royal Athena Galleries, New York.

Update: One of the pieces (no. 10) reported to be from the Metropolitan Museum of Art was mis-catalogued and is correctly placed here as ex-J. Paul Getty Museum.

Missing from the display is the Sarpedon krater on loan to the MMA. It is perhaps the acquisition of this krater by the MMA that generated such intense debate about the collecting of recently surfaced antiquities.

There are still some outstanding questions. Although it has been possible to understand the routes by which some of these antiquities passed to the MFA or the J. Paul Getty Museum, the information on other items has not been made so freely available.

It needs to be remembered that the archaeological contexts for each one of the pieces on display in this exhibition has been lost for ever. Greed and the desire to collect have snatched this information away.

Monday, December 17, 2007

The ACCG triumvirate of Peter Tompa, Wayne Sayles and David Welsh have come together in another posting, "ACCG Queries Cypriot Director of Antiquities" (December 15, 2007), about the US restrictions on the import of coins from Cyprus.

Their implication is that the "best repositories" for these coins are the cabinets of ACCG members.

As usual they miss the archaeological point. This discussion is not about ownership. It is about the protection of archaeological sites and cultural information.

Tompa's lack of a grasp on archaeological methodology is made clear in his comments to one of my recent postings:

Suffice to state, only ancient coins from "secure contexts," i.e. under flooring have any real use for dating purposes. Even then, the long periods of circulation of ancient coins makes them of much less use for dating than other artifacts, notably pottery shards.

Are "floors" the only archaeological sites that can be considered to be "secure contexts"? Of course not.

Has he ever thought that "pottery shards" are often dated thanks to contexts in which coins have been found?

And has it struck the trio that the US Restrictions were about preservation?

Bonham's have not been receiving too much positive publicity about the sale and display of antiquities. But now it is being suggested that it was Bonham's that helped to unmask the forgers behind the Bolton Amarna princess.

The British Museum were credited with uncovering the fraud that led to the jailing of serial faker Shaun Greenhalgh two weeks ago, while auction houses and the trade were criticised for selling his work.... it was trade specialists who raised the alarm after the British Museum had enthusiastically endorsed examples of Greenhalgh’s work as genuine, unwittingly giving him and his family the verification they sought to pursue their fraud.

These revelations are made by Richard Falkiner

who chairs the antiquities vetting committees at both the Grosvenor House and Olympia fairs, and is consultant to auction houses, dealers and collectors, first came across one of the Greenhalgh fakes in early 2006 on a visit to Bonhams, where he advises the antiquities department.

Clearly bad publicity over antiquities would damage his interests and activities.

So why the spin at this point? Again it is reported:

Mr Falkiner said that he decided to make the revelations public because he was unhappy that, far from being credited with their contribution to exposing the fraud, Bonhams and the trade in general had been criticised in the press for helping put fakes in circulation.

Perhaps what this case has shown is that "old collections" can be fabricated, a feature seen in the surfacing of genuine antiquities in North American cases.

And if Falkiner is wanting to deflect criticisms of "Bonhams and the [antiquities] trade in general" could he explain how newly surfaced antiquities continued to be sold on the market?

And equally worrying is the way that museum officials seem to have authenticated these Greenhalgh forgeries. Will those institutions explain how their staff made such a serious error of judgement?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The seizure of Polaroids in Geneva continues to have an impact. ANSA reported last week (December 5, 2007) on "Etruscan Bronze Recovered in Switzerland". The 2nd century BC bronze figure is said to have been taken from an Etruscan tomb at Vulci in modern Tuscany. It was identified, thanks to the evidence provided by the Polaroids, in a Swiss private collection and the owner has agreed to return it to Italy. The name of the collector has not been released.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Jessica Dietzler has interviewed Dr. Pavlos Flourentzos, the director of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus ("The case for Cyprus", SAFE Interviews). It includes discussion of the US decision to restrict the import of coins from Cyprus. Flourentzos comments:

We deeply appreciate the decision of the Department of State to include ancient Cypriot coins in the MOU [sc. Memorandum of Understanding]. This act shows sensitivity to the importance of preserving world cultural heritage, a principle highly esteemed by the international scientific community.

He makes the point that is understood by archaeologists but not by some in the collecting community that coins form an integral part of the archaeological record and should not be treated as a special case.

You have very rightly pointed out that coins are an essential part of the corpus of the archaeological data. Actually, there is no scientific reason to set coins apart from the rest of archaeological finds. And it is important to understand that there is no way of retrieving coins without destroying the stratigraphy of a site.

In contemporary archaeology the ultimate value is context and not any isolated artifact. Thus, destroying stratigraphy to retrieve a coin is equal to destroying archaeology.

He also emphasises the transformation of the discipline of archaeology from antiquarianism to scientific study.

I am afraid that arguments about “responsible” collecting are based on the nineteenth century—and thus completely out of date—tradition when it was thought that archaeology is a pleasant pastime that anyone could “enjoy”. In the decades that have elapsed, the gradual transformation of archaeology from a pastime to a science has proved the essential difference between looting and scientific excavation.

It is useful to have the archaeological case made in such a clear way. And it contrasts with the voice of some of the more radical collectors who have yet to understand the material and intellectual consequences of collecting coins.

Hecht has been been catching the full glare of the media spotlight for his links with some of the antiquities returned from North American collections to Italy. And his name features prominently in The Medici Conspiracy.

Elkins draws attention to a recent posting on Moneta-L where this question was posed:

With such a reputation I am wondering how people feel about a collection of his [sc. Hecht's] coming to market. Does it make you want to stay away from his material, are people more interested in it because of his colorful past?

It will be interesting to see how the sale of Part 1 of the Hecht collection goes.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

I was very struck by this quotation from one of the more extreme voices in the debate surrounding the international movement of cultural objects.

The writer is Wayne Sayles ("Excellence to ACL = Gee-Gaws to archaeologist", Ancient Coin Collecting, November 30, 2007).Apparently the threat to the cultural heritage of the world comes not from looters but, according to Sayles, from archaeologists. His objection is to the tone of attacks made on the outreach scheme Ancient Coins for Education (ACE).

The cultural heritage of the world is in serious trouble while there continue to be radical advocates of the right to collect irrespective of the irreversible damage to the archaeological record.

Paul Davies, president of the IAPN, has published a response - not on the IAPN website as you might expect - but on the website of the ACCG thoughtfully posted by Wayne Sayles (ACCG, December 8, 2007).

Interestingly Davies makes a statement that the IAPN - like the ACCG - "opposes looting of archaeological sites". But he perhaps forgot to read the discussion "Coins, ethics and scheduled monuments" posted back in September. It would have helped him to think through the issues.

I wonder if Davies would consider adopting the amendment I proposed for the ACCG Code of Ethics:

Coin Collectors and Sellers will not buy coins that they know or reasonably suspect were removed from archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections.

And does Davies address the real motives behind the IAPN's action? Not really.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

The sale of the Guennol Lioness - "said to have been found at a site near Baghdad" and displayed at the Brooklyn Museum since 1948 - at Sotheby's in New York this week for US$57.161 million has captured attention.

But this is the third best year since 1998 for the sale of Egyptian antiquities at Sotheby's with a total of US$6.586 million in 2007. First place is 2004 with US$9.414 million, and second is 1999 with US$6.811 million.

Egyptian antiquities now represent 16% of the total sales of antiquities for the period 1998-2007 fetching some US$42.826 million. Antiquities in general - and that includes the Guennol Lioness - have raised some US$216.306 million for Sotheby's.

And what are the sources for these Egyptian antiquities?

Just over 95% lots have no stated find-spot. And some 68% were first known after 1973.

Robin Pogrebin ("Fordham Opens Its Gift: An Antiquities Museum ", New York Times, December 6, 2007) has reported on today's opening of the Fordham Museum of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Art. This collection was formed by a former classics student of Fordham. The NYT reports:

For some four decades, William D. Walsh browsed auction catalogs in search of the ancient artifacts that would gratify his passion for classical antiquity.

In other words during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and in this decade, Walsh has been buying antiquities at auction. Pogrebin continues:

Mr. Walsh said he acquired every piece at public auctions — not through a private dealer — and therefore hopes that the provenance of his artifacts is clean and accounted for. “I’ve always focused on keeping the auction house between myself and the seller,” he said.

But it is well documented that antiquities have been surfacing through auction houses. Why did one well-known auction house close down its antiquities department in London? Why had some of the antiquities returned from North American museums to Italy passed through established auction houses?

Pogrebin tries to get some balance in his report and quotes Richard Hodges, the director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology:

It’s a slightly imprudent act on the part of the university [sc. Fordham], because a lot of it is not provenanced ... The message that it sends is there is nothing wrong with looting and buying illegal objects. Fordham needs to be very careful about this.

The collection is described by Jennifer Udell, the curator, as follows:

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The coverage of recent rumours of impending US restrictions on antiquities provides some insights into the thinking behind some of those who appear to support or defend the unrestricted collecting of cultural objects (Jeremy Kahn, "Is the U.S. Protecting Foreign Artifacts? Don't Ask", New York Times, April 8, 2007).

One of the more colourful comments was from William G. Pearlstein who describes himself as counsel at Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell and Peskoe LLP. He is listed as representing "Private dealers and collectors of fine art and antiquities" as well as the "National Association of Dealers in Ancient, Oriental and Primitive Art, Inc."

Pearlstein came up with this wonderful statement (if we accept the veracity of NYT):

In a lot of anti-collecting bashing or museum bashing that goes on there is always a background of quasi-socialist sentiment.

And what is the evidence for this sweeping statement? Does "always" mean "always"? And what is "quasi-socialist sentiment"? And does speaking out against the looting of archaeological sites equate to "anti-collecting bashing or museum bashing"? In fact such a comment suggests that Pearlstein has rather run out of rational lines of defence. If Pearlstein took a moment to think about his sound bite he would have been struck by the oddity of describing Lord Renfrew, for example, as a quasi-socialist.

The IAPN is a non-profit organisation of the leading international numismatic firms founded 1951. The objectives of the Association are the development of a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade conducted according to the highest standards of business ethics and commercial practice.

Peter Tompa has now commented (in response to my posting where I stated, "But there is also an active lobby apparently seeking to liberalise the market"):

I don't understand why you think we stand for "liberalizing" the trade.

Really?

Even when one of the three bodies taking legal action has a stated objective to develop "a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade".

Even when the IAPN states in the legal papers that "the material sought in these FOIA requests will assist the IAPN in reaching these organizational goals", viz. "a healthy and prosperous numismatic trade".

Even when restrictions on the movement of coins (and antiquities) from Cyprus limit the supply. (And the point of the US import restriction is, I am sure we can both agree, to protect the archaeological and cultural heritage of Cyprus.)

The State Department recently imposed unprecedented import restrictions on ancient coins from Cyprus—requiring importers of even a single common coin of “Cypriot type” to provide unfair, unworkable and unnecessary documentation.

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is the only organization actively defending collectors against the steady and insidious encroachment of legislation and regulations aimed at restricting and perhaps eventually banning private collecting.

Is the ACCG the only organisation "actively defending collectors against the steady and insidious encroachment of legislation and regulations"? What about the IAPN, or that matter the PNG, that are both fellow plaintiffs?

In any case, what is the problem if the coins available to collectors come from legitimate sources? After all, the legal papers (item 1) actually specify "other members of the public interested in the legitimate international exchange of cultural artifacts".

All ACCG and the numismatic trade seek here is the "provenance" of the unprecedented decision to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type and some transparency and accountability from the public servants at the State Department.

Really?

Wayne Sayles perhaps gives a big clue (again as a comment on the same Safecorner posting) when he says:

What is not mentioned is that collector and trade organizations support the Cultural Property Implementation Act. We honor the recommendations of CPAC. We merely asked Department of State whether they honored the recommendation of their own committee when they agreed to impose import restrictions. When they refused to answer that question, we felt that it was our right as citizens to use legal processes to force that answer.

I am note sure how the IAPN based in Brussels (and with that address --- 14, rue de la Bourse, 1000 Brussels, Belgium --- on the legal papers submitted against the US State Department) counts as a US citizen (though I realise that there are US-based dealers within IAPN).

I am also intrigued why the IAPN has still to make any mention of the court action on the press release section of its website. Is the IAPN taking an active role? Or is it just lending its name? Indeed the same appears to be true for the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG).

So what are the motives of the IAPN? What are they hoping to achieve by this court action?

Perhaps Messrs Sayles, Tompa, and Welsh could encourage their (sleeping) partners to make their views heard.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

A conference attended by North American museum directors and Italian cultural authorities was held in Rome held this week (Elisabetta Povoledo, "Progress Seen in Talks on Antiquities", New York Times, December 1, 2007). This is a positive move after the return of antiquities from Boston, Malibu, New York, and Princeton.

Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli not only claimed "We are ushering in a new era" but:

The phase that was tied to illegal activity through unacceptable channels is closed, and we have arrived at a turning point where we have become partners against illegal traffic.

There is a new spirit of collaboration. Does this mean that other North American museums have come to an agreement with the Italian authorities?

It is perhaps a pity that, in this week of constructive dialogue, Philippe de Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art chose to release a defiant message through his interview with Richard Lacayo. Was the timing a coincidence? Or are de Montebello's controversial views now being placed to one side?

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).